2017 (11) TMI 1321 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal granted for excise duty refund on construction materials in housing project

CCE & ST, Tirunelveli Versus M/s. Tata Relief Committee

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding a refund claim for excise duty on construction materials used in a charitable housing project. While ... Refund of the excise duty paid on steel and cement used in construction of houses, as per N/N. 32/2005-CE dated 17.8.2005 - time limitation - denial on the ground that the refund claim for the period 01.10.2005 to 31.12.2005 was filed beyond the period of 120 days - Held that: - Apex court in the case of GIRDHARI LAL AND SONS Versus BALBIR NATH MATHUR AND OTHERS [1986 (2) TMI 253 - Supreme Court of India], held that in order to avoid patent injustice or invalidation of law, strict adhering to the time limit for filing refund claims stipulated in a notification would only adversely affect the public interest and thereby defeat the very purpose of issuing N/N. 32/2005 - since the refund claim for the quarter 01.10.2005 to 31.12.2005 is beyond the time limit of one year prescribed under section 11B, refund for the period October 2005 to December 2005, rightly rejected - other refunds, being in time, is allowed - appeal allowed in part. Issues:Refund claim timeline adherence under Notification No. 32/2005-CE for construction materials used in charitable housing project.Analysis:The case involved a public charitable society registered under the Public Societies Registration Act, entrusted by the Government of Tamilnadu to construct houses for Tsunami victims. The society filed a refund claim for excise duty paid on steel and cement used in construction as per Notification No. 32/2005-CE. The original authority rejected the refund claims due to late filing beyond the specified timeline. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the decision, citing the Apex Court's judgment on the importance of public interest over strict adherence to time limits in such cases. The respondent argued that only one refund claim was delayed, while others were within the timeframe. They provided necessary certificates and complied with all conditions. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) on the importance of public interest but found the respondent ineligible for the refund claim for the quarter beyond the one-year limit prescribed under section 11B, except for a specific amount. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal based on this analysis.In the judgment, the Tribunal acknowledged the importance of balancing strict adherence to time limits with considerations of public interest, as highlighted in the Apex Court's judgment. The case emphasized the need for timely filing of refund claims under Notification No. 32/2005-CE, with exceptions considered based on specific circumstances. The Tribunal's decision to partially allow the appeal was based on the one-year limit prescribed under section 11B, emphasizing the legal framework governing refund claims in such cases. The judgment provided a nuanced analysis of the issues surrounding the timeline adherence for refund claims in charitable projects, underscoring the legal complexities involved in such matters.